Re: PEP 420: Implicit Namespace Packages

On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Antoine Pitrou <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2012 22:12:51 +1000
> Nick Coghlan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> It's really irrelevant. The real deciding factor is that Guido didn't
>> like the scheme proposed in PEP 382, so he rejected it.
>>
>> However, my personal experience with both git and hg is that renaming
>> files still generates an awful lot of diff noise - none of them have
>> formal rename, they still fake it with "remove and add" the same way
>> subversion does.
>
> That doesn't seem to make any difference in practice:
>
> $ cat a
> a\nb\n
> $ hg mv a b
> $ hg di
> diff --git a/a b/b
> rename from a
> rename to b
>
> (there's no "awful lot of diff noise" above)

Now rename zope/ to zope.pyp/ in a full Zope checkout and see how much
noise you get.

Besides, I have yet to have any VCS (git and hg included) get a rename
right. My bad experiences with renames is one element that has helped
me to come to terms with the fact that PEP 382 is dead and PEP 420 is
going to replace it.

If your experiences differ, then fine, that's not going to help you
accept the decision. But it doesn't matter *how* you come to terms
with it, only that you do. That's really the only option here: Guido
has flat out rejected PEP 382 because he doesn't like the idea of
directory extensions. It's not coming back.

However, the PEP 420 authors should probably take note that the two
most interested people that weren't in the room at the language summit
still don't find that the PEP text explains the situation all that
well :)

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   [email protected]   |   Brisbane, Australia